Our website uses cookies to give you the best experience and for us to analyse our site usage. If you continue to use our site, we will take it you are OK about this. Click on More for information about the cookies on our site and what you can do to opt out.

If you are using an older internet browser, new security restrictions mean that from Thursday, 7 June 2018, you may no longer be able to access our website. You will need to update your browser or use an alternative one. We apologise for the inconvenience but some older browsers are no longer secure enough for use on our website. Find out more here.

Bankruptcy and the right to be forgotten
Richard Stephen
20 August 2015

The issue over whether a person’s past should continue to be discoverable online is one of the big privacy debates of our time. Although the concept of the ‘right to be forgotten’ has been around since 2006, it gained momentum in 2014 when the European Court of Justice agreed that a Spanish man, Mario Gonzalez, had the right to get Google to “break the link” to online information about his past financial difficulties.

The ECJ decision has since become a cornerstone in a worldwide debate about whether people have a right to have parts of their past erased from search results, in the same way as New Zealand’s ‘clean slate’ legislation works for some criminal convictions from seven years ago or earlier.

We have received a number of complaints this year which, it could be said, reference the right to be forgotten. The Commissioner has also written a blog post about the subject.

One complaint involved a bankruptcy that had been annulled in 2012. This annulment was published in the New Zealand Gazette, formerly a hard copy publication put out by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA).

But in 2014, the Gazette became an online publication, and it retrospectively published online the names of people who had declared bankruptcy or No Asset Procedure (NAP). The retrospective material published included information dating back to 1993. In this case, the complainant was upset over the online publication of their bankruptcy details (which had been annulled). These details were searchable via Google and other search engines.

We notified DIA under principle 7 of the Privacy Act, which says that people have the right to correct information about themselves, if they think it is wrong, inaccurate, out-of-date, incomplete or misleading.

The publication of notices in the Insolvency Register is authorised by the Insolvency Act 2006 which required the Insolvency Office to publish specified information in NAP notices for a one year period. The Insolvency Office is also required to publish a notice in the Gazette.

The publication of notices in the Gazette is required under the Public Records Act 2005 which requires that notices are published in perpetuity as a matter of public record.

When we met with DIA to discuss the case, the Department acknowledged the ease with which information published in the online Gazette online could be found, particularly through Google. The Department considered the appropriateness and feasibility of blocking certain notices in the online Gazette.

While it was technically feasible to block a direct search of particular personal details on the Gazette website, it did not change the accessibility of the information as search engines could cache search results and the information could be copied and duplicated across a range of online sources. DIA also noted blocking online information while retaining a hardcopy record would make the public record inconsistent.

DIA said it was aware it might be unclear to some individuals that bankruptcy and NAP processes required the publication of their notices in perpetuity as a matter of public record. DIA said it had considered the need for improved communications to affected individuals about the availability of this information.

The Department also added text to the online Gazette notices to indicate if a person listed on the site had been discharged from bankruptcy or NAP. This explanation also indicated the bankruptcy period.

We conveyed DIA’s explanation to the complainant, and pointed out the actions the Department had undertaken to address their concerns and offered them an opportunity to respond. The complainant withdrew their complaint and the investigation ended on that basis.

The fact that DIA has to maintain an accurate historical record does not mean people should not be entitled to ‘move on’ with their lives. Subsequent users of the information should be aware that they are obliged to ensure that information is accurate, up to date, complete, relevant, and not misleading.

Under the Credit Reporting Privacy Code, recent debts and judgments are permitted to be listed on individuals’ credit reports for certain maximum periods before being required to be drop off (usually after no longer than 5 years).

In relation to single instances of bankruptcy and entry to ‘NAP’, references can remain on credit reports for four years from the date of discharge. But in cases of multiple bankruptcies, the information can remain indefinitely.

Credit reporters and other agencies that maintain people’s financial information must be mindful of the need to ensure the information is accurate because the implications of having inaccurate and out-of-date information can be costly to an individual.

Comments

So please enlighten my family when will we have the right to be forgotten online? We are a family of 4 and the only ones in NZ with this surname. How many more years are we going to be tormented, not only in NZ but overseas as well? It is online bullying, if www.insolvency.govt.nz remove my name after 7 years then it is illegal to publish incorrect information about me because my slate is wiped clean and I will no longer be bankcrupt, therefore it should not be online anywhere the day my 7 years is up and I do not have to spend the rest of my life being bullied by the Gazette or Credit Report sites. Absolutely disgusting, bullies.

Post Reply

The aim of the Office of Privacy Commissioner’s blog is to provide a space for people to interact with the content posted. We reserve the right to moderate all comments. We will not publish any content that is abusive, defamatory or is obviously commercial. We ask for your email address so that we can contact you if necessary to clarify your comment. Please be respectful of authors and others leaving comments.

No one including the Privacy Commissioner is taking responsibly or seriously understanding the consequences of the online bullying from the Gazette. When you file for bankruptcy with insolvency names do not show in google search, a huge difference, sad that so called professional people in charge just don’t understand that or act like they cannot make a change.
Anyone knows it would take less than a minute to delete it from google search. Treated worse than a criminal.

Post Reply

The aim of the Office of Privacy Commissioner’s blog is to provide a space for people to interact with the content posted. We reserve the right to moderate all comments. We will not publish any content that is abusive, defamatory or is obviously commercial. We ask for your email address so that we can contact you if necessary to clarify your comment. Please be respectful of authors and others leaving comments.

No one has commented on this page yet.

Post your comment

The aim of the Office of Privacy Commissioner’s blog is to provide a space for people to interact with the content posted. We reserve the right to moderate all comments. We will not publish any content that is abusive, defamatory or is obviously commercial. We ask for your email address so that we can contact you if necessary to clarify your comment. Please be respectful of authors and others leaving comments.